Re: [Modeling-users] ModelMasons refactored

[Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...>]

Mario Ruggier <ma...@ru...> wrote:
> On lundi, avr 21, 2003, at 15:02 Europe/Amsterdam, Jerome Kerdreux wrote:
>=20
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:51:46PM +0200, Sebastien Bigaret wrote:
> >
> >> Mario wrote:
> >>> Just a minor comment, w.r.t. naming of the generated files/classes.
> >>> I feel that:
> >>>
> >>> a) "Base" is probably not the best name extension to use, as it has
> >>> a well-known generic meaning, and in addition it says nothing about
> >>> the "volatility" of these generated files/classes. Better names would
> >>> be something like "Auto" or "Gen" or "mdl" or "pom" or "morfy" ...
> >>
> >> Reasonable too. What about 'Autogen'? Since we're going this way I gue=
ss
> >> that models (xml/py) should be moved to that directory too, so that
> >> everything that is overwritten when generating the code clearly falls =
in
> >> the dedicated directory.
> >
> > Hum I want to maintain a reference to the fact that this came from the
> > modeling. Cause i use some ORB here and it generate a lot of code too
> > so 'Autogen' hurt me a little . (same in glade too)
> > I prefer the previous one 'Mdl' or something else.
>=20
> Don't understand. Why does AutoGen give you a problem and Base
> does not, as far as other 3rd party generated code goes ?

I guess Soif prefers to have the AutoGen directory named after the
framework which generated it, since he uses other tools, such as glade,
also generating code.

I personally do not care: I consider the two generation scheme as
example on how things can be done. It's no big deal, however, I guess we
can choose 'MDL'.

> >> Mario> b) It is unnecessarily repeated -- what is the point of naming
> >> Mario> all the classes in the "Base" sub-package also with "Base"?
> >> Mario> Wouldn't it be more convenient to name only the sub-package? E.=
g.
> >>        [...]
> >>
> >> No problem; since we forget about 'Base' as a package it's a nonsense =
to
> >> keep it here.
> >
> >
> > Hum i'm not really clear about this, but i think this can generated
> > namespace colision . mainly in the 'working' module
>=20
> Well, it is true if you import it directly into the local namespace.
> However, i fell it is a lot of clutter to keep repeating the prefix (or
> postfix)
> for each file. What is the point of having a namespace if not to avoid
> having to do such things?
> [...]

I agree, I feel like we'll keep it as-is; I too can't see any good
reason why a collision in the namespace could reasonably happen.

-- S=E9bastien.